Authors

S. Obe

Department of Computer Science, Rivers State University, Port-Harcourt, Nigeria

D. Matthias

Department of Computer Science, Rivers State University, Port-Harcourt, Nigeria

E. O. Bennett

Department of Computer Science, Rivers State University, Port-Harcourt, Nigeria

Abstract

Multi-class imbalanced classification remains difficult because minority classes can be poorly recognised even when aggregate performance appears acceptable. Many imbalance-handling methods still rely on a fixed technique, a single selected technique, or one level of adaptation, despite the fact that technique suitability changes with both dataset characteristics and local decision regions. This article presents Hybrid Adaptive Ensemble Weighting with Dynamic Ensemble Selection for multi-class imbalanced classification. The model combines two sources of evidence: dataset-level suitability estimated from meta-features, and instance-level competence estimated around each test sample. Adaptive Ensemble Weighting uses kernel similarity over 13 meta-features to estimate the suitability of 10 imbalance-handling technique pipelines, while Dynamic Ensemble Selection measures local classifier competence from validation-neighbourhood behaviour. Both weight vectors are then combined during prediction. Evaluation was carried out on 30 OpenML benchmark datasets with 3 to 20 classes, 160 to 10,000 instances, 4 to 1,300 features, and imbalance ratios from 1.9:1 to 567.2:1. Under Leave-One-Dataset-Out validation, using macro F1-score as the primary metric, Hybrid AEW-DES achieved the highest average macro F1-score of 0.7308 and the best average rank of 3.83 among the 10 evaluated methods. AEW ranked second with an average macro F1-score of 0.7245 and exceeded the Oracle single-technique reference score of 0.7188. The Friedman test confirmed significant differences among methods (p = 0.0020). Wilcoxon signed-rank tests showed significant AEW improvements over Baseline, SingleSelect, KNORA-E, and Stacking, while Hybrid AEW-DES significantly outperformed DES-LA and KNORA-E. These results indicate that combining dataset-level meta-feature weighting with instance-level local competence can improve adaptive technique combination within the evaluated benchmark setting.

Keywords

Multi-class imbalanced classification; adaptive ensemble weighting; dynamic ensemble selection; meta-learning; kernel similarity; meta-features; macro F1-score

Citation of this Article

S. Obe, D. Matthias, & E. O. Bennett. (2026). Adaptive Ensemble Weighting with Local Competence for Multi-Class Imbalanced Classification. Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Emerging Technologies (JAIET). 3(9), 1-9. Article DOI: https://doi.org/10.47001/JAIET/2026.309001 

Licence Copyright (c) 2026 Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Emerging Technologies. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 4.0 International Licence.

References

  1. W. Chen, K. Yang, Z. Yu, Y. Shi, and C. L. P. Chen, “A survey on imbalanced learning: Latest research, applications and future directions,” Artificial Intelligence Review, vol. 57, Article 162, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-024-10759-6
  2. M. Altalhan, A. Algarni, and M. Turki-Hadj Alouane, “Imbalanced data problem in machine learning: A review,” IEEE Access, vol. 13, pp. 13686-13699, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2025.3531662
  3. Y. Wang, M. M. Rosli, N. Musa, and F. Li, “Multi-class imbalanced data classification: A systematic mapping study,” Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 14183-14190, 2024. https://doi.org/10.48084/etasr.7206
  4. N. V. Chawla, K. W. Bowyer, L. O. Hall, and W. P. Kegelmeyer, “SMOTE: Synthetic minority over-sampling technique,” Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, vol. 16, pp. 321-357, 2002. https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.953
  5. G. E. Batista, R. C. Prati, and M. C. Monard, “A study of the behavior of several methods for balancing machine learning training data,” ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 20-29, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1145/1007730.1007735
  6. H. Han, W. Y. Wang, and B. H. Mao, “Borderline-SMOTE: A new over-sampling method in imbalanced data sets learning,” in Advances in Intelligent Computing. ICIC 2005. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3644, pp. 878-887, Springer, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1007/11538059_91
  7. H. He, Y. Bai, E. A. Garcia, and S. Li, “ADASYN: Adaptive synthetic sampling approach for imbalanced learning,” in 2008 IEEE International Joint Conference on Neural Networks, pp. 1322-1328, IEEE, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1109/IJCNN.2008.4633969
  8. I.Araf, A. Idri, and I. Chairi, “Cost-sensitive learning for imbalanced medical data: A review,” Artificial Intelligence Review, vol. 57, Article 80, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-023-10652-8
  9. X. Y. Liu, J. Wu, and Z. H. Zhou, “Exploratory undersampling for class-imbalance learning,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B (Cybernetics), vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 539-550, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMCB.2008.2007853
  10. G. Lemaitre, F. Nogueira, and C. K. Aridas, “Imbalanced-learn: A Python toolbox to tackle the curse of imbalanced datasets in machine learning,” Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 18, no. 17, pp. 1-5, 2017. https://jmlr.org/papers/v18/16-365.html
  11. J. Vanschoren, “Meta-learning: A survey,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.03548, 2018. https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.03548
  12. A.Rivolli, L. P. F. Garcia, C. Soares, J. Vanschoren, and A. C. P. L. F. de Carvalho, “Meta-features for meta-learning,” Knowledge-Based Systems, vol. 240, Article 108101, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2021.108101
  13. R. M. O. Cruz, L. G. Hafemann, R. Sabourin, and G. D. C. Cavalcanti, “DESlib: A dynamic ensemble selection library in Python,” Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 21, no. 8, pp. 1-5, 2020. https://jmlr.org/papers/v21/18-144.html
  14. K. Woods, W. P. Kegelmeyer, and K. Bowyer, “Combination of multiple classifiers using local accuracy estimates,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 405-410, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1109/34.588027
  15. S. Rezvani, F. Pourpanah, C. P. Lim, and Q. M. J. Wu, “Methods for class-imbalanced learning with support vector machines: A review and an empirical evaluation,” Soft Computing, vol. 28, pp. 11873-11894, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-024-09931-5
  16. A.A. Khan, O. Chaudhari, and R. Chandra, “A review of ensemble learning and data augmentation models for class imbalanced problems: Combination, implementation and evaluation,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 244, Article 122778, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2023.122778
  17. Y. Yang, H. A. Khorshidi, and U. Aickelin, “A review on over-sampling techniques in classification of multi-class imbalanced datasets: Insights for medical problems,” Frontiers in Digital Health, vol. 6, Article 1430245, 2024. https://doi.org/10.3389/fdgth.2024.1430245
  18. J. R. Rice, “The algorithm selection problem,” Advances in Computers, vol. 15, pp. 65-118, 1976. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2458(08)60520-3
  19. L. Deng and M. Xiao, “Hyperparameter recommendation via automated meta-feature selection embedded with kernel group Lasso learning,” Knowledge-Based Systems, vol. 306, Article 112706, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2024.112706
  20. K. Aziz, F. Chen, M. Ahmad, M. S. Khan, M. M. Sabri Sabri, and H. Almujibah, “An interpretable dynamic ensemble selection multiclass imbalance approach with ensemble imbalance learning for predicting road crash injury severity,” Scientific Reports, vol. 15, Article 24666, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-08935-x
  21. J. Demsar, “Statistical comparisons of classifiers over multiple data sets,” Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 7, pp. 1-30, 2006. https://jmlr.org/papers/v7/demsar06a.html
  22. J. Vanschoren, J. N. van Rijn, B. Bischl, and L. Torgo, “OpenML: Networked science in machine learning,” ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 49-60, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1145/2641190.2641198.